[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240210-gemolken-gasteltern-2ca46a9d7fa2@brauner>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:22:54 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
PIDFD_THREAD
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 02:15:18PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/10, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The question is what is more useful for userspace when they do:
> > > > pidfd_send_signal(1234, PIDFD_SEND_PROCESS_GROUP)?
> > > >
> > > > (1) They either mean to signal a process group that is headed by 1234.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is what I had in mind, see also another email from me.
> > > Simple, clear, and matches kill(-1234).
> >
> > I went for a walk and kept thinking about this and I agree with you.
> > It will require that 1234 will be a process group leader but I think
> > that this is ok to require that.
>
> Yes... but I am starting to understand why you mentioned the new
> open PIDFD_PROCESS_GROUP flag... perhaps we can do something like
> this later, but this needs more thinking.
>
> > + if (type == PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP)
> > + ret = kill_pgrp_info(sig, &kinfo, pid);
>
> I guess you meant
>
> if (type == PIDTYPE_PGID)
>
> other than that,
Bahaa, yes of course.
>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists